It wasn't even one of the major reasons for it. This guy is a gun control activist, who, in the days following the last mass shooting incident, wrote multiple letters to Joe Biden telling him what to do and how to do it. He's blowing the significance of what he's found way out of proportion and completely ignoring all of the other dialog that was going on about the subject. With respect to this issue, he's a revisionist.

mcgruff knows it's bullshit, he's just being a troll

I'm not saying otherwise. But many pieces were put into place, or single words here or there changed, to appease people of different opinion. Kind of like how the religious right now likes to claim the country was founded by Jesus Freaks. It wasn't.

But that doesn't stop them from trying to be revisionist. 50's era changes to the Pledge of Allegiance and oor money are two good examples. I don't think you can find a more stupid person than a Jesus Freak (not all believers qualify)._________________lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

Nah. A suicide bomber likely took money to help their family and probably thinks they have nothing else to lose. Abortion clinic bomber? Worse IMO._________________lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

The Law Review paper has over 500 references. You two didn't read a single one of them before tossing off ignorant, knee-jerk accusations of "trolling".

It's an old argument that was widely debunked at the time it was made. I've done plenty of reading about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the 2nd Amendment. I'm familiar with the reasons why the 2nd Amendment was created, and have read numerous original documents pertaining to it.

This article is revisionist propaganda, and you are a propaganda victim. I suggested that you consult other secondary sources pertaining to the creation of the 2nd Amendment, and that you read for yourself the primary sources (as opposed to somebody else's biased third-hand interpretation). Right now, you've got an activist journalist's take on a sensationalist and activist academic's paper, which is in general disagreement with the conclusions of most historians, not to mention the Supreme Court and all its supporting apparatus.

You're either trolling, or you've got Stockholm Syndrome. Or maybe it's both. _________________History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives. -- Abba Eban